Demand bipartisanship in legislature

Re: “Reward the lawmakers who avoid the fever pitch this year,” Jan. 13 commentary

Our legislature is like the board of directors of a corporation. For a corporation to function in the best interests of its shareholders (residents of Colorado) the board must work together. No corporation will survive if its board is divided into two sides that hate each other, won’t civilly talk to or listen to each other and automatically vote against anything proposed by the other side despite its value to the corporation.

The Democrats are not the enemy of the Republicans and vice versa. Once elected to the legislature, you are now teammates. In order for the team to succeed, all teammates must put aside party loyalty and work towards the best interests of the team. Anyone who places party allegiance over their allegiance to the Constitution should not be in office. If a candidate for the legislature is not willing to work as teammates with the rest of the team, they should not run for office and certainly should not get our votes.

Our legislature members should practice being kind and work together in our best interests as a demonstration to the populace that hatred and meanness are not acceptable behaviors and will not be tolerated.

Wayne Patton, Salida

How about a bipartisan ticket?

Many people are unhappy with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Yet, they discount a third party because it would dilute the chances of success for a candidate who represents what little they still like about their party. You know, the “lesser of two evils” philosophy. But in order to have change, we need to make change. Apathy is not an option.

So, how about a president/vice president coalition ticket comprising one Republican and one Democrat? That way, the independent and dissatisfied voter wouldn’t be voting for the”other” party. I’m fairly certain our Constitution says we can’t have two presidents. But they could split the duties, giving the vice president a more active and legitimate role. Republicans are interested in fiscal issues; Democrats are interested in social issues. That would be a good jumping-off point, along with sharing national/ international duties.

Obviously, you would need two candidates who are service-oriented and not ego-driven, who know how to compromise and put the interests of the country first. Two people who come to mind are Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Illinois, retired) and Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo. This is merely a suggestion based on their temperament, experience, and intelligence. Change is probably too late for this election cycle. I hope it’s not too late for our country.

Patricia Scott, Denver

Executive privilege: a new spin on an old grievance

All the talk these days about executive privilege evokes memories from history class years ago.

From early in recorded history, rulers have exercised power, sometimes for the good of their people and sometimes just to serve themselves.

In England and France in the 17th and 18th centuries, this use of power achieved the status of “doctrine.” They called it the “divine right of kings.” On this side of the Atlantic, the American colonies suffered under the rule of King George III, who was largely accountable only to himself. Our Declaration of Independence cites 27 examples of that king’s unilateral abuse of power. After revolutions in England, France, and the nascent United States, the doctrine was overturned and replaced by systems that mandated accountability and shared responsibility.

In our era, citizens no longer openly invoke the divine rights of kings, but the phrase “executive privilege” is used more and more frequently. Is there any chance that these words are merely a balmy, more palatable way of repeating an old and discredited style of leadership?

Peter Hulac, Denver 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.